| Re: [railML2] trackRef@sequence [message #2161 is a reply to message #2157] |
Wed, 27 March 2019 07:55   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Torben,
your question adresses the order of track references in an OCP.
Am 05.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Torben Brand:
> Does anyone use trackRef@sequence?
> https://wiki.railml.org/index.php?title=IS:trackRef_propEqui pment
>
> We have a use case where we plan to have a macro model with
> only the main track forming the network. To indicate the
> track numbers in ocps we add topology unconnected tracks.
> The tracks are all connected to the <ocp> through
> crossSection@ocpRef and listed in
> ocp/propEquipment/trackRef@ref. Now it would be useful to be
> able to indicate the order of the parallel tracks in
> relation to each other. I thought of using trackRef@sequence
> here. But the wiki definition is to vague for this use case
> of ordering the tracks:
>
> If no sequence is provided, the sequence of the referenced
> tracks shall be assumed as "arbitrary" or "undefined". In no
> case the sequence of the XML elements in the XML file shall
> matter. Either all or none of the <trackRef> elements in the current
> <propEquipment> element shall carry sequence attributes. The referenced
> track with the lowest sequence value is
> interpreted as the first element of the current
> <propEquipment>. Each sequence value shall only be used once within the
> current <propEquipment>.
>
> I suggest to add the definition to the wiki of
> trackRef@sequence:
> "For parallel tracks the order is from right to left as seen
> in track direction of the main track from lowest to highest
> @sequence value."
>
> Illustration:
>
> |--track@type="secondary" @name="4" --- sequence:3
> --->
> |--------track@type="main" @name="2" ---------- sequence:2
> ---------------------->
> |--track@type="secondary" @name="1" --- sequence:1
> --->
I agree with you that we should extend the description in the wiki in
order to make better use of the sequence attribute.
What does the community think about Torben's proposal?
I have an alternative suggestion for the order of tracks:
We could also define an order starting always from the operational
center of the OCP, e.g. the side where the station building is standing
(in case there is a station building). This means, that the track
sequence number increases the farer the track is away from the OCP
center. Tbd: how about OCP where there are tracks on both sides of the
center point?
The advantage of this alternative solution is that it does not depend on
the orientation of the main track. Imagine the situation that there are
two main tracks (one for each direction) are going through the OCP and
they are oriented in different directions. How to solve this with your
approach, Torben?
Best regards
Christian
--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
